Important case law about Michigan attendant care after an accident

Six lessons that all auto accident victims and attendant care lawyers need to know

Our insurance attorneys want to share six Michigan attendant care (AC) cases that established important laws for auto accident victims. An experienced attendant care lawyer should be familiar with these laws to best protect your attendant care rights.

For basic information about attendant care in Michigan, read our attendant care FAQs. You can also call Michigan Auto Law at and speak with one of our attendant care lawyers. The call and the advice is free.

Michigan attendant care lesson 1: Family members can be compensated

Family members of a seriously injured car accident or truck accident victims can be compensated for providing attendant care – even if the family members have no medical training.

Visconti v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange: The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a car accident victim’s wife was entitled to compensation under Michigan’s No-Fault Insurance Law for services and care she provided the victim for the four months he was in a leg cast (Michigan Court of Appeals, June 5, 1979, #78-872).

Van Marter v. American Fidelity Fire Insurance Company: The Michigan Court of Appeals held that an accident victim’s family member does not need to be medically trained to be compensated for providing attendant care to the accident victim. In Van Marter, the attendant care included serving meals in bed; bathing; escorting the victim to the doctor; exercising the victim in conformity with his doctor’s instructions; assisting in formulating diet; administering medicine; assisting victim with speech and associational therapy (Michigan Court of Appeals, March 17, 1982, #51813).

Michigan attendant care lesson 2: Consider the price on the open market

To determine the value of family-member provided attendant care, consider the price such care would cost on the open market.

Manley v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange: The Michigan Supreme Court endorsed the notion that the hourly value of attendant care services can be assessed by looking at the hourly rates charged by healthcare agencies whose business it is to provide attendant care to paying customers. In Manley, the value of the private-duty, unskilled nursing care being provided to the auto accident victim who suffered a life-altering closed head injury was based on “the charges from established nursing companies” (Michigan Supreme Court, May 29, 1986, #72621).

Michigan attendant care lesson 3: Family can get paid for overseeing AC

Family members of a seriously injured auto accident victim can be compensated for overseeing, supervising and managing the attendant care provided to the auto accident victim.

Sharp v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company: The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the mother of a “gross closed-head injury” victim was entitled to attendant care reimbursement for “providing, administering and supervising [her son’s] nursing care.” The mother’s services included: “the process of seeking, interviewing, selecting, training, and supervising the nurses;” “time spent computing hours that the nurses worked, billing the insurance company, and paying the nurses;” and “money spent on advertisements, stationary and other necessary expenses related to these above-mentioned activities” (Michigan Court of Appeals, #79575, May 7, 1985).

Michigan attendant care lesson 4: Family can be paid for AC at night

Family members of a seriously injured auto accident victim can be compensated for attendant care provided during a victim’s non-waking hours.

Garbo v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company: The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a family member could be compensated for attendant care provided to a Michigan auto accident victim during non-waking hours, i.e., when the victim was asleep. In Garbo, the victim suffered a closed head injury and his doctor prescribed 24-hour attendant care “because of [the victim’s] cognitive memory problems” (Michigan Court of Appeals, #202159, January 29, 1999).

Family members of a seriously injured car accident victim cannot be denied compensation for failure to “bill” for the attendant care they provided.

Booth v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company: The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a family member who provides attendant care to a seriously injured Michigan auto accident victim may be entitled to compensation regardless of whether the “the insured was actually billed by the family” (Michigan Court of Appeals, #192527, July 25, 1997).

Michigan attendant care lesson 6: Don’t take “NO” for an answer

Don’t take “no” for an answer if an adjuster says attendant care is not available. Call a Michigan attendant care lawyer at to find out the truth.

Johnson v. Wausau Insurance Company: The Michigan Court of Appeals allowed a severe brain-injury victim’s case to be dismissed after the victim’s Michigan No Fault-insurance adjuster lied, insisting that neither attendant care nor attendant care compensation was available. The court said the victim had no case for fraud because, if the victim had contacted a lawyer sooner, the victim could have learned the truth and taken the necessary steps to secure the attendant care and accompanying compensation the victim was entitled to (Michigan Court of Appeals, May 12, 2009, #281624).

The lesson here is if you believe auto accident-related injuries warrant attendant care – and/or compensation for attendant care currently being provided – but an insurance adjuster tells you “no way,” then call a personal injury attorney from Michigan Auto Law right away to find out if the adjuster is denying you attendant care and compensation you’re legally entitled to.

Disclaimer: This information is for general informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice without consulting with a licensed attorney. This is not intended to substitute for the advice of an attorney. The law is subject to frequent changes and varies from one jurisdiction to another. Some of the information on this site may be deemed attorney advertising in some states. No attorney-client relationship is formed nor should any such relationship be implied. Past results are no guarantee of future results. A licensed attorney responsible for the content of this site can be reached at .